DC:202787.4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GEORGE S. PAULL,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEMPER, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

No. 02-4461(CW)

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER

Now come the Defendants, Kemper Inc. aka t/a Kemper National Services, Inc.

and W.W. Grainger, Inc. Claim Unit, aka t/a Integrated Disability Management

(“Kemper”) and W.W. Grainger, Inc. (“Grainger”), by their attorneys, and for their answer

to the Amended Complaint of Plaintiff George S. Paull (“Plaintiff” or “Paull’) state as

follows:

1. Defendants on information and belief admit the allegations of paragraph 1

of the Complaint.

2. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Complaint as

stated. Answering further, Defendants state that Kemper National Services, Inc.

(“Kemper”) is a Florida corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Lumbermens Mutual

Casualty Company. Kemper is the claims administrator for Grainger’s LTD plan.

3. Defendants admit that Defendant Grainger is an Illinois corporation and

that Plaintiff formerly was employed by Grainger in the position of senior sales

representative, but otherwise deny the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Complaint.

Case 2:02-cv-04461-CRW Document 7 Filed 10/03/2002 Page 1 of 6
2

4. Paragraph 4 of the Complaint contains jurisdictional allegations as to

which no response is required or appropriate. To the extent that it is construed as a

factual allegation of liability on Defendants’ part, Defendants deny said allegations.

5. Defendants admit that at the time Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint no

response had been filed to the Complaint filed on or about July 5, 2002. Paragraph 5 of

the Complaint otherwise contains jurisdictional, procedural and legal allegations as to

which no response is required or appropriate. To the extent that it is construed as a

factual allegation of liability on Defendants’ part, Defendants deny said allegations.

COUNT ONE

6. Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to paragraphs 1

through 5 as if set forth in full herein.

7. Defendants admit that on August 18, 1991, Plaintiff was involved in an

accident and was at the time a full time employee of Granger and that he had been

employed by Grainger since 1979, but lack sufficient information to admit or deny the

remaining allegations of paragraph 7 of the Complaint and therefore deny same.

8. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Complaint

9. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Complaint.

10. Defendants admit that as an employee of Grainger Plaintiff was eligible to

receive certain long term disability benefits, but otherwise deny the allegations of

paragraph 10 of the Complaint and affirmatively aver that Plaintiff received long term

disability benefits for the period from March 4, 1992 through December 19, 2001.

11. Defendants admit that on or about November 20, 2001, Kemper notified

Plaintiff that his long term disability benefits would be terminated as of December 20,

Case 2:02-cv-04461-CRW Document 7 Filed 10/03/2002 Page 2 of 6
3

2001 because he no longer qualified for such benefits, but otherwise deny the

allegations of paragraph 11 of the Complaint.

12. Defendants admit that by letter to Kemper dated January 17, 2002,

Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Appeal” of the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s long term

disability benefits as of December 20, 2001, which was accompanied by various

supporting documentation, but otherwise deny the allegations of paragraph 12 of the

Complaint.

13. Defendants admit that by letter dated February 21, 2002, Kemper denied

Plaintiff’s appeal of the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s long-term disability benefits as of

December 20, 2001.

14. Defendants admit that by letter dated April 17, 2002, Plaintiff filed with

Kemper a “Notice of Final Appeal (Administrative)” of the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s

long term disability benefits as of December 20, 2001, which was accompanied by

various supporting documentation, but otherwise deny the allegations of paragraph 14

of the Complaint.

15. Defendants admit that on or about May 20, 2002, Kemper notified Plaintiff,

through his attorney, that his appeal of the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s long-term

disability benefits as of December 20, 2001, was denied, but otherwise deny the

allegations of paragraph 15 of the Complaint.

16. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Complaint.

17. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 17 of the Complaint.

Case 2:02-cv-04461-CRW Document 7 Filed 10/03/2002 Page 3 of 6
4

18. Paragraph 18 of the Complaint contains jurisdictional allegations as to

which no response is required or appropriate. To the extent that it is construed as a

factual allegation of liability on Defendants’ part, Defendants deny said allegations.

COUNT TWO

19. Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to paragraphs 1

through 18 as if set forth in full herein.

20. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 20 of the Complaint.

21. Defendants deny any allegations not affirmatively admitted.

22. Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in

the Complaint, or to any other relief.

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES

In further answer to the Complaint, Defendant state the following affirmative and

other defenses.

FIRST DEFENSE

The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

SECOND DEFENSE

All actions taken with respect to Plaintiff were taken in good faith.

THIRD DEFENSE

Defendants did not act with willfulness or malice toward Plaintiff.

FOURTH DEFENSE

The Court lacks subject matter and/or other jurisdiction over all or portions of the

Complaint.

Case 2:02-cv-04461-CRW Document 7 Filed 10/03/2002 Page 4 of 6
5

FIFTH DEFENSE

Defendants’ actions were not arbitrary or capricious.

SIXTH DEFENSE

Defendants did not abuse their discretion.

SEVENTH DEFENSE

Defendants reserve the right to assert additional affirmative or other defenses

with regard to some or all of Plaintiff’s claims.

WHEREFORE, Defendants request that the Complaint be dismissed in its

entirety, with prejudice, and they be awarded their fees and costs and such other relief

as the Court may deem appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.

_____________________________

Frank C. Morris, Jr.

Pa. I.D. No. 18188

Brian Steinbach

Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

1227 25th Street, N.W., Suite 700

Washington, D.C. 20037-1175

(202) 861-1880

Of Counsel:

Henry Galatz

W.W. Grainger, Inc.

100 Grainger Parkway

Lake Forest, Illinois 60045-5201

Dated: October 2, 2002

Case 2:02-cv-04461-CRW Document 7 Filed 10/03/2002 Page 5 of 6
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of Defendants’ Answer was

served this 2nd day of October, 2002 by first class mail, postage prepaid, on the

following:

Roger J. Harrington, Esq.

Harrington & Caldwell, P.C.

Robert Morris Building

100 N. 17th Street, 15th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Attorney for Plaintiff

______________________________

Case 2:02-cv-04461-CRW Document 7 Filed 10/03/2002 Page 6 of 6